The Fraudulent Hospital “Deal”

The trumpets are blaring to announce with great fanfare another “historic” political deal designed to give a boost to the sagging fortunes of health care reform and convince the public real progress is being made. Hospitals are linking arms with the Obama Administration and Congressional leaders to announce “savings” of $150-155 billion over the next ten years.

This is a shellgame that should fool no one. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, hospital expenditures between 2009 and 2018 will total $10.5 trillion. So the “savings” represent about 1.5 percent of total income to the hospitals. More than half of hospital income already is generated by government payments. To put $155 billion further into perspective, this is less than the projected $175 billion Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments (DSH) under Medicaid, which are made to hospitals around the country to offset low Medicaid reimbursement rates and care for indigent populations. Medicare DSH payments are worth about another $100 billion over ten years. If everyone is insured, why are DSH payments needed at all? So at a minimum, the hospitals should be “willing” to give up about $275 billion in what will become unnecessary government payments.

Moreover, if everyone is insured, at least some of these individuals will receive care from hospitals, will they not? Currently, about 31 percent of total health care expenditures go to hospitals. If “reform” increases federal spending by $1 trillion and the hospitals get this same 31 percent of the spending, their share will be $310 billion. The hospitals’ “loss” will not only be offset, they will make another $155 billion.

What did Lincoln say? “You can fool some of the people ….”.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

I am interested in knowing what the judge thinks about a national comprehensive healthcare system that will cover anyone in any situation. For example, I belong to the National Roofer's Union; and, my health care covers me according to the amount of hours I work per week (and usually runs out during the winter while I am unemployed due to weather). However, I have not worked, due to the economy, for nearly two years now and have no insurance coverage at all. Where does she stand on someone like me having mandatory free coverage while in a circumstance like mine? Moreover, does she feel such a mandatory coverage should cover any health care problems I would encounter while unemployed and my healthcare covereage expired?

My first reaction upon reading the 'deal' was exactly the same as this analysis. By reducing reimbursements for uncompensated care, the hospitals 'give up' a subsidy they should no longer need if there are few uninsured remaining. Looks like a shell game to me.

[…] It should. Just last week, President Obama announced a deal with the nation’s hospitals to “save” $150-155 billion over the next ten years to offset the cost of a health reform plan with a price […]

[…] care reform at a rapid speed and publicize so-called deals with several health industry groups (most recently with hospitals), other members associated with the medical community also have been stepping up their efforts to […]

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.